And Sly I don't think Newt is electable against Obama. He will get the conservative vote, but honestly any Rep would get that running against BO. It is the moderate and independent votes that the Rep candidate is going to need to take from Obama to win and I don't think Newt is going to be able to make much inroads there.

+2

I agree completely about the moderate and independent voters. I think Sly is 180 degrees wrong on Newt being able to attract those voters. He is much more controversial and conservative than Romney, so how does it make sense that people in the middle would be more likely to go for him? As a comparison, flip the ideologies and see if you still hold the same opinion Sly. What if it were a sitting Republican president and there was a choice between a center-left candidate (for example someone with views like Joe Lieberman) and a liberal candidate (for example Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi). Do you really think the moderate/independent voters would go for Kucinich or Pelosi before they would Lieberman? I certainly don't. It's the same with Romney and Newt in my opinion.

One other thing I'll add regarding how each candidate is viewed, is to take a look at the favorability ratings of each person. In the latest Fox News poll, Gingrich has an unfavorable rating of 56%, with only 27% viewing him favorably. Contrast that with Romney, who has 45% favorable and 38% unfavorable.

Then you can look at the polls of each of them vs Obama. Again, a Fox News poll pitting Obama vs. Ginrich for president: Obama 51%, Gingrich 37%. Same question of Obama vs. Romney: Obama 46%, Romney 45%.

There is zero evidence in any poll, public opinion survey, or anything else that I'm aware of that shows Gingrich being more popular nationally than Romney. If you know of something, I'd love to see it. From what I've seen, it's not even close. The only candidate who (thus far) has any numbers approaching Obama's is Romney.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

January 23rd, 2012, 12:38 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

My gut feeling is that Newt is the candidate of the "angry white man." That 30+ middle income guy who identifies as Republican. Those people love Newt.

Everyone else? Not so much.

January 23rd, 2012, 7:37 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Blue:

I can see that as being truth especially when the Angry White man is:

1. portrayed as a buffoon on television in most sitcoms2. portrayed as an idiot in most commercials.3. labeled a racist because they don't support some form of tolerance4. has been passed over for jobs he's fully qualified for, and worked hard to earn, all because of affirmative action.5. had his self worth blatantly attacked by the loss of employment, because of an administrations OBVIOUS attempt at creating a nanny state.6. had his dignity removed from having to stand in a welfare line, because he has to look into the eyes of his hungry family that he can't support, because of #5.7. watched numbers of illegal aliens standing in the same lines, to receive benefits that a. they are NOT entitled to, and b. didn't pay into

So yeah I could see why Newt get's their attention.

I'd love to see a campaign poster of Newt going after the testicles of Obama with a pair of dull scissors, with the caption, "It's time to get Newtered!" I guess one can only hope!

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

My gut feeling is that Newt is the candidate of the "angry white man." That 30+ middle income guy who identifies as Republican. Those people love Newt.

Everyone else? Not so much.

I see that you get your talking points from Daily Kos and Salon. Both of them ran stories about Newt and the "angry white man" yesterday.

Truth be told, in South Carolina Newt won every demographic except those under 30 (Ron Paul) and those who make over $200K per year (Mitt Romney). Newt won all other age and income brackets, as well as those based on race, gender, and ideology. And here I thought that Newt couldn't win the women's vote according to the political pundits, but yet again, they were wrong.

I agree completely about the moderate and independent voters. I think Sly is 180 degrees wrong on Newt being able to attract those voters. He is much more controversial and conservative than Romney, so how does it make sense that people in the middle would be more likely to go for him? As a comparison, flip the ideologies and see if you still hold the same opinion Sly. What if it were a sitting Republican president and there was a choice between a center-left candidate (for example someone with views like Joe Lieberman) and a liberal candidate (for example Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi). Do you really think the moderate/independent voters would go for Kucinich or Pelosi before they would Lieberman? I certainly don't. It's the same with Romney and Newt in my opinion.

One other thing I'll add regarding how each candidate is viewed, is to take a look at the favorability ratings of each person. In the latest Fox News poll, Gingrich has an unfavorable rating of 56%, with only 27% viewing him favorably. Contrast that with Romney, who has 45% favorable and 38% unfavorable.

Then you can look at the polls of each of them vs Obama. Again, a Fox News poll pitting Obama vs. Ginrich for president: Obama 51%, Gingrich 37%. Same question of Obama vs. Romney: Obama 46%, Romney 45%.

There is zero evidence in any poll, public opinion survey, or anything else that I'm aware of that shows Gingrich being more popular nationally than Romney. If you know of something, I'd love to see it. From what I've seen, it's not even close. The only candidate who (thus far) has any numbers approaching Obama's is Romney.

I completely understand where you, Pablo, and Wags are coming from with this. But, it's manufactured by the media, the establishments of both parties, and the Gang of 500. Needless to say, I don't put much stock in what any of them say. Hell, they're the same ones who told us that Bob Dole and John McCain were the most electable, while Ronald Reagan didn't stand a chance of winning. Shows you how much they know.

Also, every one of you guys should know that polls are meaningless 9 months before an election. At the start of the 2008 election cycle, they predicted that it would be Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. How did that work out? Furthermore, 8 days prior to the SC primary, Romney led by double digits, but ended up losing by double digits. Things can change on a dime and inevitably will several times between now and November.

I should add that the Tea Party/conservative base can't stand Romney. When the GOP had a full slate of candidates, Mittens was stuck at 20-25% support. He didn't go up and he didn't go down. That was the establishment vote, while the conservative base supported Anybody But Romney. That will not change unless something crazy happens. IMO, the base has now united behind Newt, so it's gonna be extremely difficult for Romney to overcome that.

I completely understand where you, Pablo, and Wags are coming from with this. But, it's manufactured by the media, the establishments of both parties, and the Gang of 500. Needless to say, I don't put much stock in what any of them say. Hell, they're the same ones who told us that Bob Dole and John McCain were the most electable, while Ronald Reagan didn't stand a chance of winning. Shows you how much they know.

Also, every one of you guys should know that polls are meaningless 9 months before an election. At the start of the 2008 election cycle, they predicted that it would be Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. How did that work out? Furthermore, 8 days prior to the SC primary, Romney led by double digits, but ended up losing by double digits. Things can change on a dime and inevitably will several times between now and November.

I should add that the Tea Party/conservative base can't stand Romney. When the GOP had a full slate of candidates, Mittens was stuck at 20-25% support. He didn't go up and he didn't go down. That was the establishment vote, while the conservative base supported Anybody But Romney. That will not change unless something crazy happens. IMO, the base has now united behind Newt, so it's gonna be extremely difficult for Romney to overcome that.

I think I understand what you mean about being manufactured by the media as far as polls and things go, but the facts that Newt is more polarizing and is the more extreme of the two candidates are not manufactured by anyone. Those are facts. And, like I said before, I just can't see people in the middle going for a more extreme candidate.

Also, the more I look into their histories, the more concerned I become about Gingrich. Things like learning that he publicly stated that one of the reasons the Republicans in the house when he was speaker pushed for so many cuts that led to the gov't shut down was that Newt felt snubbed by having to sit on the back of Air Force One. He basically threw a little hissy fit. There was even a comic about it in one of the major newspapers at that time (I forget exactly which one). The more I research, the more I find examples of him going off and making wild, bombastic statements that just aren't supported by facts, or he seems to get mad and kind of has a fit about not getting what he wants. Neither of these are things that I want in a leader.

Romney isn't perfect, but I keep coming back to him being the best option for me. I put a lot of weight in the fact that he has successfully turned around struggling businesses and enterprises many times in his career. He has a great record in that regard, and I think that's the kind of skill set we need in Washington right now.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

And why exactly does John Stewart's opinion about any Republican matter?

Moving on from the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, I understand why some people feel that Newt isn't electable, but what makes Romney electable? Is it because that's what the lamestream media and political pundits tell you? I know that it isn't because Mitt is charismatic, inspiring, motivational, or entertaining. He is none of those things and never will be. He's about as exciting as a fathead with a tape recorder playing a robocall behind it. Who is going to be enthusiastic enough to vote for that amongst the uninformed, apolitical, moderate, independents? The answer is nobody,

Newtzilla, on the other hand, will wake those uninformed, apolitical, moderate, independents up. He will be able to articulate a contrast between Obama's failed policies and his own pro-growth solutions with a touch of flair. He is capable of inspiring people and drawing in Independents much more so than Willard's cardboard cutout, unemotional, static, delivery techniques. If you don't believe me, just ask apolitical Independents why they sat out the election instead of voting for Dole or McCain. Romney would be in the same boat, with the additional negative that many conservatives would sit the election out or vote 3td party too.

Don't believe the lamestream media or establishment Republican bullshit. They both want to keep the status quo in Washington and will say or do anything to prevent Gingrich from getting to the Oval Office. Furthermore, no matter who the GOP nominee is, they will be viciously attacked by the media anyway, so why not select someone with the ability and determination to fight back?

in Thursday's debate, when CNN's John King asked Gingrich to respond to the "open marriage" allegations, Gingrich railed against "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" and added that asking about "personal pain" is "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine". Gingrich was not always so sensitive about personal matters, having once tried to impeach Bill Clinton over "personal pain", AKA lying about having an affair with a woman 22 years younger than him. But considering Gingrich himself was having an affair with a woman 22 years his junior at exactly the same time, "hypocrisy" has for him always been an elastic concept.

Last edited by UK Lion on January 25th, 2012, 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

And why exactly does John Stewart's opinion about any Republican matter?

Moving on from the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, I understand why some people feel that Newt isn't electable, but what makes Romney electable? Is it because that's what the lamestream media and political pundits tell you? I know that it isn't because Mitt is charismatic, inspiring, motivational, or entertaining. He is none of those things and never will be. He's about as exciting as a fathead with a tape recorder playing a robocall behind it. Who is going to be enthusiastic enough to vote for that amongst the uninformed, apolitical, moderate, independents? The answer is nobody,

Newtzilla, on the other hand, will wake those uninformed, apolitical, moderate, independents up. He will be able to articulate a contrast between Obama's failed policies and his own pro-growth solutions with a touch of flair. He is capable of inspiring people and drawing in Independents much more so than Willard's cardboard cutout, unemotional, static, delivery techniques. If you don't believe me, just ask apolitical Independents why they sat out the election instead of voting for Dole or McCain. Romney would be in the same boat, with the additional negative that many conservatives would sit the election out or vote 3td party too.

Don't believe the lamestream media or establishment Republican bullshit. They both want to keep the status quo in Washington and will say or do anything to prevent Gingrich from getting to the Oval Office. Furthermore, no matter who the GOP nominee is, they will be viciously attacked by the media anyway, so why not select someone with the ability and determination to fight back?

You clearly have yourself convinced that the only way anyone could support Romney is because they've been brainwashed by the media or the establishment Republicans (which is ironic considering Gingrich has been in Washington for his entire career). It's kind of a lame cop-out in my opinion. You're kind of attacking the messenger instead of the message itself. Same thing with John Stewart. I don't know how often you watch his show, but he gives both Republicans and Democrats a hard time. Yes he leans left, and he's honest about that, but he's very fair in my opinion. He says things and asks questions that nobody in mainstream media will.

Anyway, as for why Romney is electable, it's because he's not as extreme, and because he actually has a history of leading things successfully and has zero scandal attached to him. It has nothing to do with what media says or anything else. Everything I've said here are facts. Newt is more extreme, has a more erratic history, and his loads of scandals in his past. Those are all the kinds of things that you and others have railed against Obama for. So now you've basically got all the problems of Obama, but on the right instead of the left. That doesn't add up to more electable in my book.

The bottom line, like I said before, is that moderates and independents have never in history (that I'm aware of) shown a tendency to prefer a more extreme candidate vs a more moderate one. That is just human nature. If you can come up with an example of that ever happening, I'd love to hear about it.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

January 25th, 2012, 10:13 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12296

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

slybri19 wrote:

And why exactly does John Stewart's opinion about any Republican matter?

Maybe because this is America and we're all supposed to be allowed to have our own opinions

slybri19 wrote:

Moving on from the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, I understand why some people feel that Newt isn't electable, but what makes Romney electable? Is it because that's what the lamestream media and political pundits tell you? I know that it isn't because Mitt is charismatic, inspiring, motivational, or entertaining. He is none of those things and never will be. He's about as exciting as a fathead with a tape recorder playing a robocall behind it. Who is going to be enthusiastic enough to vote for that amongst the uninformed, apolitical, moderate, independents? The answer is nobody,

For me, they're ALL a bunch of asshats.

Romney to me is the Repub version of Obama (slick, smooth talker, "used car salesman-esque").Newt is a blowhard, hypocrite.Santorum is a social policy nightmarePaul is the closest for me and I would LOVE for him to be part of an Admin, but he just says some crazy chit sometimes (though I did LOVE it when he slammed Newt during the debate)Roemer could be good too, but they just won't let him in any of the debates (great on Twitter tho)

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

January 25th, 2012, 10:21 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3987Location: Davison Mi

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Quote:

I completely understand where you, Pablo, and Wags are coming from with this. But, it's manufactured by the media, the establishments of both parties, and the Gang of 500. Needless to say, I don't put much stock in what any of them say. Hell, they're the same ones who told us that Bob Dole and John McCain were the most electable, while Ronald Reagan didn't stand a chance of winning. Shows you how much they know.

this is very true. you hear this kinda BS all the time. Currently it's "Ron Paul can't win". It's not voters saying that...it's both sides of the party line. they'll tell you that "noooo you're throwing your vote away". It's that exact same thing IMO.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

January 25th, 2012, 1:35 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

No, Ron Paul can't win, period. His stance on foreign policy, abortion, and the military makes him unelectable on the Rep ticket, and he'll never win as an independent. Further, his stances on the IRS, small government, and flat tax are too "out there" to be enacted in sweeping legislative changes. Ron Paul and Congress would but heads continuously.

As for the "independent" voters - who says that Romney is more "moderate" than Newt? I certainly don't think so. Newt talks about a restrained capitalist system, Romney talks about a nefarious free market. Newt appeals to Main St., Romney says that by appealing to Wall St. you're helping Main St. Newt's message, far more than Romney's hits home for the average voter, not to mention the "yuk" sleezeball factor that Romney brings to the table.

January 25th, 2012, 2:39 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2862

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Quote:

No, Ron Paul can't win, period. His stance on foreign policy, abortion, and the military makes him unelectable on the Rep ticket, and he'll never win as an independent. Further, his stances on the IRS, small government, and flat tax are too "out there" to be enacted in sweeping legislative changes. Ron Paul and Congress would but heads continuously.

Why abortion? He's pro life and wants Roe v Wade overturned.

Yeah, he can't get elected. But that isn't the point. Ron Paul has been the most influential figure in Republican politics in the last five years. He raised the issue of the Fed, the gold standard, personal rights, drawing down US military in bases around the world--that was all him. He brought that into the conversation. No other person on the right has impacted the discussion as much as Paul has.

Paul is Rocky in Rocky I. He's Obi Wan in Star Wars IV. Give it 10, or 15 years. His ideas will be mainstream Republican ideology.

I really don't see how Obama loses. Either the economy improves a little bit more, in which case he takes credit and wins. Or it gets worse, in which case he blames the rich people and he wins. Putting aside my own beliefs, objectively both Gingrich and Romney are deeply flawed candidates. I think Obama takes either one to the woodshed.